Is the ocean broken?

What's a broken ocean got to do with the climate change swindle?

 

https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/363382main_image_1397_946-710.jpg

 

Please, allow me a chance to analyze what this article is saying.

"Nehrbass-Ahles and his colleagues suggest the jumps in atmospheric CO2 result from changes in a conveyor belt of ocean currents in the Atlantic Ocean. When the Gulf Stream weakens, that warm current brings less heat to North Atlantic waters. Those changes in sea-surface temperature, in turn, cause weather patterns in the tropics to shift, triggering a shrinkage of wetlands, Nehrbass-Ahles says. The carbon-rich material stored in those formerly swampy zones then decomposes, sending a pulse of CO2 into the air to warm the climate.

In modern times, these ancient pulses wouldn’t be impressive: A 10-part-per-million jump in CO2, which may have unfolded over 100 years or more in preindustrial times, could these days take only 4 or 5 years to transpire.

Nevertheless, Marcott says, “Finding these rapid jumps [in CO2] is quite exciting from my perspective.” The team’s results show sudden pulses of CO2 occur not only as ice ages are waning, but can be triggered at any time during the ice age cycle."
-
"Nehrbass-Ahles and his colleagues suggest the jumps in atmospheric CO2 result from changes in a conveyor belt of ocean currents in the Atlantic Ocean."

1st point, it's a suggestion, not a stated fact. This is an idea to research, a path to follow while looking for answers that we don't already have.

2nd point, the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is suggested to be the result of large scale changing currents. These currents were already changing, if they changed at all. I'm not sure which part is supposition, here.

"When the Gulf Stream weakens, that warm current brings less heat to North Atlantic waters. Those changes in sea-surface temperature, in turn, cause weather patterns in the tropics to shift, triggering a shrinkage of wetlands, Nehrbass-Ahles says."

3rd point, This means the temperate zone is cooling while the tropical zone is warming due to the natural heat of the water not getting carried North, as it normally would.
"Those changes in sea-surface temperature, in turn, cause weather patterns in the tropics to shift" the article isn't explicit about that, but that has to be what's happening. There is a certain amount of heat energy and it is not leaving the tropics, therefore, "weather patterns in the tropics to shift" means warming. No CO2 involved.

"changes in sea-surface temperature, in turn, cause weather patterns in the tropics to shift, triggering a shrinkage of wetlands, Nehrbass-Ahles says."
4th point, Let me remind you of the opening quote to this post, Nehrbass-Ahles and his colleagues suggest". Is the shrinkage of the wetlands a supposition or is that a known fact for the time period we are looking at? I'll go with known fact. But, warmer air with shifting warm water currents are commonly blamed for more severe weather, and in the tropics, that generally means more rain. However, the tropics are drying up while the temperate and arctic zones are cooling. The ocean has to be receding, then. More ice buildup in the arctic zones, less water in the tropics. I might be stretching my logic here, but I can't see the flaw. There has to be a missing piece.

"The carbon-rich material stored in those formerly swampy zones then decomposes, sending a pulse of CO2 into the air to warm the climate."
5th point, this is not an explanation of how CO2 warms the globe, it assumes that to be true. It is a suggestion that CO2 is the cause of more warming.

6th point, "The team’s results show sudden pulses of CO2 occur not only as ice ages are waning, but can be triggered at any time during the ice age cycle."
The article seems to suggest that this jump in CO2 happens mostly, but not always, on the waning side of an ice age. "occur not only as ice ages are waning". The way this is worded sounds like the primary timing for this phenomenon is on the waning side. This suggests, to me, that the waning of an ice age, the warming of the globe, has already begun before these jumps of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'm not prepared, based on this article, to accept the climate warming properties of a Greenhouse Gas like CO2, based on what the article has to say. It sounds more like warming causes the release of CO2.

Physics tells us that in thermo dynamics, energy is neither created nor destroyed, it only transfers in form. If some substances give off radiant energy more slowly than others, then a layer of such a substance around an object, would allow the energy levels to build before again, giving off its steady state of energy, that is, energy equally to the energy coming in. A warming period must reach its maximum.

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

You are more eloquent than I am.

 

Yes. That is pretty much the whole point of pure scientific research.

It probably means warming, but could also mean changes in wind patterns, changes in precipitation patterns, etc.

No, not a safe assumption to make for all tropical regions. For instance, the west coast of tropical South America is very dry, and getting dryer with global warming.

Perhaps you should study the actual scientific study, and not just the journal article meant for public consumption. Unfortunately, it is behind a paywall.
Abrupt CO2 release to the atmosphere under glacial and early interglacial climate conditions | Science https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6506/1000

Yes, it is a scientifically settled question that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will increase retention of solar radiation. There is a vanishingly small number of actual scientific skeptics on the question, but, at least in the US (and this thread), a large number of deniers.

That is half correct. We briefly discussed what causes Earth to reverse out of an ice age a month or so ago here.

A more complete discussion can be read here:

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
The core of the explanation is:

• Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
• CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
• CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet

Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase

Nor should you be. That was not the purpose of either the scientific research or the journal article.

Agree.

 

You certainly have a good vocabulary. Problem is, you over-utilize it.

 

Tall Ship Transits the Northern Sea Route Without Seeing Ice

The barque Sedov has become the first sailing vessel to pass through the Northern Sea Route in 150 years.[I question that] According to her master, Capt. Mikhail Novikov, she encountered virtually no ice over the course of the voyage along Russia's Arctic coastline - a reflection of the unusually warm Arctic summer this year.

“We expected, at least, fine ice in the Vilkitsky Strait and Long Strait. But we passed almost all parts of the Northern Sea Route in open water - nowhere did we come across broken ice or icebergs," Novikov told russian outleft Neft.

 

I do too. Perhaps they mean the first tall ship.

But, we may be wrong.
Ramos' Arctic Loop Prohibited - Latitude38 https://www.latitude38.com/lectronic/ramos-arctic-loop-prohibited/
"Imagine how you’d feel if you’d spent five years and a small fortune in pursuit of becoming the first person to solo circumnavigate the North Pole, only to be turned back midway by inflexible bureaucrats. That’s exactly what happened to West Coast sailor Gary Ramos early this month when Russian authorities flatly refused to allow him to transit their northern waters."

-Will (Dragonfly)

 

Yes, that makes the most sense to me.

In 2016 David Hempleman-Adams became the first sailor to circumnavigate the Arctic Ocean (Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route) in one season. Presumably others had sailed the Northern Sea Route previously.

Hempleman-Adams Arctic challenge 'demonstrates climate change'

see also David Hempleman-Adams | Wikipedia

 

As sea-ice retreats to record low, Arctic shipping reaches new high

According to the Russian Federal Agency for Maritime and River Transport, a total of 22,98 million tons was shipped on the route in the period January-September 2020. That is 1,5 percent more than in the same period in 2019. The total volume for 2020 is expected to exceed 32 million. By 2030 shipments will amount to 110 million tons.

The whole Northern Sea Route is now ice-free. There are only certain areas with drifting icebergs around the Vilkitsky Strait and by Cape Zhelaniya in Novaya Zemlya, as well as ice hammocks in parts of the East Siberian Sea, according to the Federal Agency for Maritime and River Transport.

 

Northern Hemisphere Snow Mass Above Average + Greenland Ice Sheet's Astonishing Gains Continue - Electroverse https://electroverse.net/nh-snow-mass-above-avg-greenlands-gains-continue/

 

Climate change does not support the AGWers contention man causes it. Climate has always and is always changing. Man wasn't responsible for it a billion years ago, can't use it as evidence man is responsible in the modern era. Stop trying to re-write history.

 

It's always such a pleasure to have you favor us with your illogic. Since naturally-caused forest fires have been a feature of the Earth for a billion years it only stands to reason that humans can't be responsible for any current forest fires.

 

That is one of the stupidest analogies I have ever read.
You better check your own logic. It seems to be dysfunctional.

 

You don't understand my logic because you failed to understand what I DIDN'T say.
I did not say humans could't be responsible for climate change, I said that climate change isn't evidence humans cause it, and a forest fire isn't evidence a human set it on fire either..
Requires evidence more than it exists, to determine how a fire started. Same with climate change.
As far as is it likely humans cause climate change? I don't see a viable explanation how they could. The minimal CO2 humans contribute has no such potential.